Melbourne surpasses Sydney in population

[Docere]

Didn't catch this news when it came out.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-populous-city

I find this Sydney-Melbourne zigzag fascinating. Sydney was older but Melbourne was the larger city for most of the 19th century. Sydney reached 50,000 first, but Melbourne reached 100,000 first due to the gold rush. Then Sydney pulled ahead around the turn of the 20th century. But Melbourne is faster growing today and since the mid-19th century they've always been pretty close in size.

It's not like Toronto/Montreal where Toronto eventually pulled ahead and never looked back.

19th century populations:

1851

Sydney 53,924
Melbourne 23,143

1861

Melbourne 139,916
Sydney 95,789

1871

Melbourne 206,780
Sydney 137,776

1881

Melbourne 282,947
Sydney 224,939

1891

Melbourne 490,896
Sydney 383,283

Metropolitan populations, going back to 1901 (2021 is prior to the update).

1901

Sydney 481,117
Melbourne 480,279

1911

Sydney 629,503
Melbourne 582,275

1921

Sydney 899,059
Melbourne 766,465

1933

Sydney 1,235,267
Melbourne 983,173

1947

Sydney 1,626,083
Melbourne 1,275,525

1954

Sydney 1,863,217
Melbourne 1,524,062

1961

Sydney 2,183,231
Melbourne 1,911,895

1971

Sydney 2,807,828
Melbourne 2,436,335

1981

Sydney 3,204,696
Melbourne 2,806,000

1991

Sydney 3,672,855
Melbourne 3,156,700

2001

Sydney 4,128,272
Melbourne 3,366,542

2011

Sydney 4,627,345
Melbourne 3,999,982

2021

Sydney 5,231,147
Melbourne 4,917,750

[wanderer34]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...etwork#Alpha_+

According to the GaWC, it's determined that Sydney is the most important city in Australia when it comes to economics and finance, then it's Melbourne. I believe that Melbourne, however, is the most important city when it comes to the arts and theatre.

Either way, there may be a time when Sydney comes back for it's crown as the largest city in Australia, and it's pretty sad that Montreal has to be stuck in the doldrums while Toronto is building 300 M towers in almost every part of the city.

[Docere]

They're essentially the same size. What I think is more interesting is Australia has two dominant cities of equal size than whether one is slightly ahead of the other.

[Acajack]

Montreal is not really stuck in the doldrums. Even if Toronto is growing faster.

Originally Posted by wanderer34

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...etwork#Alpha_+

According to the GaWC, it's determined that Sydney is the most important city in Australia when it comes to economics and finance, then it's Melbourne. I believe that Melbourne, however, is the most important city when it comes to the arts and theatre.

Either way, there may be a time when Sydney comes back for it's crown as the largest city in Australia, and it's pretty sad that Montreal has to be stuck in the doldrums while Toronto is building 300 M towers in almost every part of the city.

[Crawford]

IMO Sydney is still the alpha. Legacy matters.

Outside of the Australian Open, which is the least prominent grand slam tennis tournament, I don't think there's much associated with Melbourne (and not even sure if most know the Oz Open is in Melbourne, not Sydney). It's one of those cities everyone has heard of, but where there isn't much associated with the name, like a Frankfurt or Dallas.

Anyone know why Melbourne is closing the population gap? More immigrants? More business friendly environment?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Crawford

IMO Sydney is still the alpha. Legacy matters.

Outside of the Australian Open, which is the least prominent grand slam tennis tournament, I don't think there's much associated with Melbourne (and not even sure if most know the Oz Open is in Melbourne, not Sydney). It's one of those cities everyone has heard of, but where there isn't much associated with the name, like a Frankfurt or Dallas.

Anyone know why Melbourne is closing the population gap? More immigrants? More business friendly environment?

I suspect that's the perception of most people but there's something to be said for lag. A city can pull even with another by most metrics but it will take time, often a generation, before people start viewing them as equals. And it takes longer for foreigners to catch up with realities on the ground. When I visited, Australians seem to view these 2 cities as equals even if foreigners didn't yet.

You were right to point out the Australian Open but it does extend beyond that. Melbourne remained the cultural capital of Australia even when Sydney was #1. 9 of Australia's 18 AFL teams are based in the Melbourne area; that's half the league. The Australian Grand Prix is in Melbourne as well. Sydney has the Australian Stock Exchange and stronger iconography (opera house, harbour bridge, Bondi) but Melbourne's top dog culturally. These 2 cities are pretty equal imo.

[Yuri]

Good lord! My thread about this subject is 10 years old! Power Shift: Cities. 46 pages!!! Lots of good discussions on Rio vs São Paulo, Montreal vs Toronto and also Sydney vs Melbourne.

And as @isaidso says above, indeed perceptions take a while to change. The former primate usually keeps its status in several fields way after the surpass.

For instance, Rio de Janeiro still rivaled São Paulo up to the 1990's even on finances. Now, when São Paulo is almost twice as bigger and Rio de Janeiro kept on its relatively decline, São Paulo is dominant and completely unchallenged in every single field.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

São Paulo is dominant and completely unchallenged in every single field.

Not in terms of global tourism or intl. renown. SP should be more prominent, but Rio is still Brazil's signature city and global icon. The WC finals were in Rio and Rio serves as the cliche cultural export.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not in terms of global tourism or intl. renown. SP should be more prominent, but Rio is still Brazil's signature city and global icon. The WC finals were in Rio and Rio serves as the cliche cultural export.

But how that matters on people's daily lives in a big continental country like Brazil where international tourism is pitiable (6 million tourists/year)?

And even on that, São Paulo surpassed Rio on domestic tourism long ago and it's getting more and more attention of foreign tourists as well. Morever, São Paulo handles almost 80% of Brazilian international air traffic and Rio de Janeiro's allegedly international prominence doesn't translate in business and jobs: São Paulo is the HQ of pretty much every multinational present in Brazil/Latin America (and of course, SP is the HQ of the largest Brazilian companies as well, even of the ones whose operations are mostly on other states.

Given Rio de Janeiro was Brazilian capital for 200 years and the largest city for all this period and competed to São Paulo up to the 1990's, being Brazilian (international) tourist capital is not a proper consolation prize.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Good lord! My thread about this subject is 10 years old! Power Shift: Cities. 46 pages!!! Lots of good discussions on Rio vs São Paulo, Montreal vs Toronto and also Sydney vs Melbourne.

And as @isaidso says above, indeed perceptions take a while to change. The former primate usually keeps its status in several fields way after the surpass.

For instance, Rio de Janeiro still rivaled São Paulo up to the 1990's even on finances. Now, when São Paulo is almost twice as bigger and Rio de Janeiro kept on its relatively decline, São Paulo is dominant and completely unchallenged in every single field.

A fascinating topic and an SSP highlight.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Docere

A fascinating topic and an SSP highlight.

Thank you, Docere! I love this kind of threads. You learn a lot while organizing them.

Originally Posted by Wigs

Many non SSP Canadians still have "stagnant Montreal" in their mind. When that couldn't be further from the truth. It's 2024 not 1994 or even 2004.

There's so much development happening in Montreal right now, not to mention the REM "light metro" rail line.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3...%A9tropolitain

Some Canadians think Vancouver is either at the same level of prominence or have exceeded Montreal as Canada's 2nd city.

I'd imagine by the 2026 census the gap between Montreal and Vancouver will have further widened.

GDP, Canadian dollars
2010........2020.....Increase
Toronto - $296.1B......$430.9B....+~$134.8B
Montréal - $164.5B.....$228.7B....+~$64.14B
Vancouver - $105.8B...$163.7B...+~$58B

Statistics Canada. Table 36-10-0468-01 Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by census metropolitan area (CMA) (x 1,000,000)
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=3610046801

Yes. Just by looking by Census numbers from 2000's onwards or even watching random urbanism videos on YouTube, it's clear Montreal is now in a good place.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Good lord! My thread about this subject is 10 years old! Power Shift: Cities. 46 pages!!! Lots of good discussions on Rio vs São Paulo, Montreal vs Toronto and also Sydney vs Melbourne.

And as @isaidso says above, indeed perceptions take a while to change. The former primate usually keeps its status in several fields way after the surpass.

For instance, Rio de Janeiro still rivaled São Paulo up to the 1990's even on finances. Now, when São Paulo is almost twice as bigger and Rio de Janeiro kept on its relatively decline, São Paulo is dominant and completely unchallenged in every single field.

Your Power Shift: Cities thread was one of the best ever. The last paragraph about São Paulo vs Rio de Janeiro sounds eerily similar to Toronto vs Montreal. It took a very long time but Toronto (now 53% larger) is dominant and unchallenged in every field. There's a perception that Montreal is a bigger draw for international tourism but even that one is no longer true. Like São Paulo, Toronto has a lower international profile than you'd expect considering its size. I suspect it won't remain that way for either city. Toronto's star continues to rise.

That said, I would like to see more parity amongst our biggest cities. Having 1 huge city that utterly dominates is problematic on many levels; especially in a vast federation.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Your Power Shift: Cities thread was one of the best ever. The last paragraph about São Paulo vs Rio de Janeiro sounds eerily similar to Toronto vs Montreal. It took a very long time but Toronto (now 53% larger) is dominant and unchallenged in every field. There's a perception that Montreal is a bigger draw for international tourism but even that one is no longer true. Like São Paulo, Toronto has a lower international profile than you'd expect considering its size. I suspect it won't remain that way for either city. Toronto's star continues to rise.

That said, I would like to see more parity amongst our biggest cities. Having 1 huge city that utterly dominates is problematic on many levels; especially in a vast federation.

Another similarity between Toronto and São Paulo in this context it's how both started off as blue collar, industrial. "Sexy" industries such as finance, education or the being political centre were not factors. This industrial baggage of São Paulo gave it this chaotic, organic form, very different from other Latin American megacities with their monumental "grand city" form like Mexico City, Buenos Aires and even Rio de Janeiro.

Now, São Paulo is even dominant on politics despite never been the capital. Every single important (popular) political event in Brazil on the past 3 decades happened here. That's the place where big demonstration happens, where most of politicians gather when not in Brasília, where presidents celebrates their victories like Lula or where they organize protests (Bolsonaro, far-right).

That level of dominance São Paulo reached in Brazil and Toronto in Canada is indeed seems out of place in continental countries, specially in those two with a very decent network of smaller metropolises and wealth spread out for most of territory. Maybe that's due US bias making us believe their very decentralized urban hierarchy is the only path for continental countries. I see some positive though.

P.S. Another similarity between São Paulo and Toronto is that both are protected by a network of a very dynamic network of smaller urban areas, preventing them to lose their assets, specially manufacturing and logistic to places far away (as it happened to pretty much every Northern US metropolis). They simply realocate to just outside the metro area instead of going to the other side of the country. São Paulo has its Macrometropolitan Area with 33 million people and GGH with 10-11 million. With such powerful buffer zone, it's impossible for those two to lose ground inside their respective countries.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by isaidso

That said, I would like to see more parity amongst our biggest cities. Having 1 huge city that utterly dominates is problematic on many levels; especially in a vast federation.

There's some scholarship that suggests that U.S.-Germany-China type population/wealth distributions, with multiple power nodes, are better for economic growth than France-UK-Japan type centralized distributions.

I could see Toronto's rise as potentially challenging for Canada's overall economic growth. In an Anglosphere-dominated world, you have Toronto, and everywhere else is problematic. Montreal is the "wrong" language/culture, Vancouver ultra-isolated and ridiculous income-housing ratios, and everywhere else is really cold. Winnipeg and Edmonton aren't really like Nashville or Stuttgart. Multinationals don't have the menu of options like in the U.S. It creates inefficiencies.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I suspect that's the perception of most people but there's something to be said for lag. A city can pull even with another by most metrics but it will take time, often a generation, before people start viewing them as equals. And it takes longer for foreigners to catch up with realities on the ground. When I visited, Australians seem to view these 2 cities as equals even if foreigners didn't yet.

Seemingly with good reason, as they're both pretty much the same size.

You were right to point out the Australian Open but it does extend beyond that. Melbourne remained the cultural capital of Australia even when Sydney was #1. 9 of Australia's 18 AFL teams are based in the Melbourne area; that's half the league. The Australian Grand Prix is in Melbourne as well. Sydney has the Australian Stock Exchange and stronger iconography (opera house, harbour bridge, Bondi) but Melbourne's top dog culturally. These 2 cities are pretty equal imo.

What makes Melbourne the leading city for culture?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Docere

What makes Melbourne the leading city for culture?

Perhaps over simplistic, but Melbourne boomed at the right time. The 1851 Gold Rush made Melbourne Australia's biggest city by 1865. This was a pivotal time when many of Australia's important institutions were developed: the Mint, the Stock Exchange, and the University of Melbourne. The abundance of wealth meant massive investment in museums, galleries, and sporting venues like MCG.

These cultural assets represented a giant lead the city never relinquished.

[Cirrus]

Is this city limits or region?

[Docere]

Metropolitan areas. But "suburb" has a different meaning in Australia - it pretty much means neighborhood or community.

The actual city of Sydney is pretty small. 200,000 in 10 square miles. Not that much different than what is said to constitute Downtown Toronto.

[Docere]

And the city of Melbourne has a smaller population, but is less densely populated. 150,000 in 15 square miles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Melbourne

[Klippenstein]

Just from a very superficial level, it seems that Sydney is more constrained in its geography and Melbourne has more space to spread out into, which could explain why it's growing faster. Cheaper land values usually means cheaper housing and faster growth.